It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christianity & Hobby Lobby

page: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

edit on 21/7/2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: spirited75

there was a time when it was part of the job to wear makeup...along with high heeled shoes.
I don't do either1



OMG . . . So true . . . And you could be fired for anything the boss didn't like. You could be fired for just getting pregnant. Not only that, you could be fired for just suggesting getting pregnant.

I was actually threatened with firing for having a run in my nylons. Do you remember keeping extra nylons in your drawer so you didn't commit the ultimate sin of having a run in your nylons? And to save money when pantyhose came out, you cut the bad leg off and sewed on a good leg from another pair.

I KNOW how far women have come in equal rights. I KNOW how backward this Hobby Lobby decision is in women's equality.

Have to add this one. Flight attendants had to wear girdles. If their butt jiggled walking down the aisle, they could be fired.



edit on 21-7-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: spirited75

there was a time when it was part of the job to wear makeup...along with high heeled shoes.
I don't do either1



OMG . . . So true . . . And you could be fired for anything the boss didn't like. You could be fired for just getting pregnant. Not only that, you could be fired for just suggesting getting pregnant.

I was actually threatened with firing for having a run in my nylons. Do you remember keeping extra nylons in your drawer so you didn't commit the ultimate sin of having a run in your nylons? And to save money when pantyhose came out, you cut the bad leg off and sewed on a good leg from another pair.

I KNOW how far women have come in equal rights. I KNOW how backward this Hobby Lobby decision is in women's equality.

Have to add this one. Flight attendants had to wear girdles. If their butt jiggled walking down the aisle, they could be fired.




SO OH MY GOD.
Because HL won their case at the scotus women will now get fired for having a run in their panty hose, and flight attendants will have to wear girdles, and ........ and.............. and it is so awful


Henny Penny, THE SKY IS FALLING.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

I wonder if she reallizes the FEMINISTS are winning the draft so THEY to can be JUST like us?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: spirited75

there was a time when it was part of the job to wear makeup...along with high heeled shoes.
I don't do either1



OMG . . . So true . . . And you could be fired for anything the boss didn't like. You could be fired for just getting pregnant. Not only that, you could be fired for just suggesting getting pregnant.

I was actually threatened with firing for having a run in my nylons. Do you remember keeping extra nylons in your drawer so you didn't commit the ultimate sin of having a run in your nylons? And to save money when pantyhose came out, you cut the bad leg off and sewed on a good leg from another pair.

I KNOW how far women have come in equal rights. I KNOW how backward this Hobby Lobby decision is in women's equality.

Have to add this one. Flight attendants had to wear girdles. If their butt jiggled walking down the aisle, they could be fired.




Perish the thought an employer might demand a neat appearance. OH THE HORRORS! Next you'll be telling me you were threatened with termination for having mustard spilled all over your shirt from lunch. That would be real oppression. So, do you ever not play the victim card?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
IT is about their choice of faith and selective contraception not you and abortions.


Now there's a guy opinion for ya, on women's birth control rights.

How exactly does this decision affect you?



Simply. If there are mandates for coverage, my rates will go up. If there is taxpayer coverage, my rates go up. If you establish precedent for the federal government to mandate one thing, you establish precedent for the federal government to mandate many more things that effect everyone, so, yes these sort of decisions affect everyone, victimhood status hysteria notwithstanding.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Oh look. Alfonse is a Republican Catholic. No bias there. en.m.wikipedia.org...'Amato

So let me get this straight. Catholics want to force their ideologies on non-Catholic women, and those women are extremists because they object.



No, those women are extremists because they take the point of activism, not the Constitution. I find it ironic that Al cannot be objective because he is male and Catholic but the "wise latina" cannot have bias at all. Hypocrisy much?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




No, those women are extremists because they take the point of activism, not the Constitution.


LOL You act as though there's something wrong with "activism", and like there's anything based on the constitution in the Hobby Lobby decision. HAHA



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Mark my words -- there will be "Christian" companies who won't want to pay for the medical costs of any women employees having a child out of wedlock. Question is, will the Supreme Court have to allow that now that this precedent has been set?This could go from bad to worse really fast. Going backwards indeed.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: tsingtao



should the Catholic Church be forced to pay for an insurance plan for its employees that covers emergency contraception?


Of course the Catholic Church and the Vatican are against women's reproductive rights and contraception. They've been making money, hand over fist, for hundreds of years by stealing and selling babies and enslaving young women and orphans. You can't teach a "old dog new tricks" and a "bad tree never bears sweet fruit".

300,000 babies stolen from their parents - and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic church in Spain


Bwah-ha-ha-ha. I don't like religion and I don't believe in God and even I find that premise ridiculous.

It's quite simple--Catholics do not believe in birth control or abortion because they believe that they violate the sanctity of life. I don't agree with it necessarily, especially where birth control stands (every sperm is not sacred), but that's the whole underlying reason, not some stupid Jack Chick evil conspiracy. That you even believe in such drivel is a clear demonstration of your underlying bias and prejudice. Now, of course, we have a clear vision of your underlying reasoning.

I've head similar crap against Jews "OMG, they use the blood of Christian (or Muslim depending on who is getting hysterically offended) babies in their Matzoh dough.

Pagans: OMG! They sacrifice children to Thor!

Atheists! OMG, they are secretly trying to overthrow the world.

All is clear now, thank you for that.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: tsingtao



should the Catholic Church be forced to pay for an insurance plan for its employees that covers emergency contraception?


Of course the Catholic Church and the Vatican are against women's reproductive rights and contraception. They've been making money, hand over fist, for hundreds of years by stealing and selling babies and enslaving young women and orphans. You can't teach a "old dog new tricks" and a "bad tree never bears sweet fruit".

300,000 babies stolen from their parents - and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic church in Spain


Bwah-ha-ha-ha. I don't like religion and I don't believe in God and even I find that premise ridiculous.

It's quite simple--Catholics do not believe in birth control or abortion because they believe that they violate the sanctity of life. I don't agree with it necessarily, especially where birth control stands (every sperm is not sacred), but that's the whole underlying reason, not some stupid Jack Chick evil conspiracy. That you even believe in such drivel is a clear demonstration of your underlying bias and prejudice. Now, of course, we have a clear vision of your underlying reasoning.

I've head similar crap against Jews "OMG, they use the blood of Christian (or Muslim depending on who is getting hysterically offended) babies in their Matzoh dough.

Pagans: OMG! They sacrifice children to Thor!

Atheists! OMG, they are secretly trying to overthrow the world.

All is clear now, thank you for that.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




No, those women are extremists because they take the point of activism, not the Constitution.


LOL You act as though there's something wrong with "activism", and like there's anything based on the constitution in the Hobby Lobby decision. HAHA


Activism has no business on the bench. The bench is about the law. Period. That you would even support an activist SCOTUS judges shows your contempt for that document and the separation of powers.

Because the Constitution was the reason behind the SCOTUS decision, all of your "no it isn't" protests and evil Catholic conspiracies notwithstanding. You are wrong when you say it wasn't.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

You think human trafficking is funny?


The children were trafficked by a secret network of doctors, nurses, priests and nuns in a widespread practice that began during General Franco’s dictatorship and continued until the early Nineties.

Hundreds of families who had babies taken from Spanish hospitals are now battling for an official government investigation into the scandal. Several mothers say they were told their first-born children had died during or soon after they gave birth.





posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

You think human trafficking is funny?


The children were trafficked by a secret network of doctors, nurses, priests and nuns in a widespread practice that began during General Franco’s dictatorship and continued until the early Nineties.

Hundreds of families who had babies taken from Spanish hospitals are now battling for an official government investigation into the scandal. Several mothers say they were told their first-born children had died during or soon after they gave birth.




NO, I think your moronic attempt to connect the US SCOTUS decision with a mythical world wide Catholic conspiracy to ban birth control so they had more babies to sell laughable and rather pathetic. Although, I appreciate the slip, because it lets us all know where you are coming from.

LOL. Like the Alinskyesgue way of trying to turn this around for me supporting human trafficking. You must have got an "A" in your Rules for Radicals class. Well done!



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Activism has no business on the bench. The bench is about the law. Period. That you would even support an activist SCOTUS judges shows your contempt for that document and the separation of powers.


BS! The only five judges who ruled this way were all Catholic men. Go figure. Of course this was "activism" from the bench.


Because the Constitution was the reason behind the SCOTUS decision,


No it wasn't.


all of your "no it isn't" protests and evil Catholic conspiracies notwithstanding. You are wrong when you say it wasn't.


Prove it. Show us where in the ruling the Constitution is referred to once. Please who me in the Hobby Lobby defense argument where their lawyers presented a Constitutional argument.

You can't because there isn't one. If Hobby Lobby thought they could win this case on Constitutional merits they would have brought a Constitutional argument, but they didn't. They (SCOTUS) ruled on the RFRA, because that was the basis for that argument that Hobby Lobby, et al, lawyers case rested on and what they brought to the COURT.




edit on 21-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

Mark my words -- there will be "Christian" companies who won't want to pay for the medical costs of any women employees having a child out of wedlock. Question is, will the Supreme Court have to allow that now that this precedent has been set?This could go from bad to worse really fast. Going backwards indeed.



Oh I know. Being my age I've had a front row seat on the women's rights movement and the rise in secular thinking that's been slowly taking down Christian dominance.

I've known people who got fired because they didn't respond when directly asked if they were Christian. Kind of like "in the closet" gays who want to keep their jobs.

This SC decision was plain and simple WRONG.

IMO I think there's gonna be a backlash against this ruling.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, its pathetic, and obviously true. Catholics have been enslaving, kidnapping and stealing people (trafficking) since their inception. The Vatican is evil to the core and if the CHURCH is pushing something, you can bet its for a nefarious agenda.

Only the gullible and naive would think that the Vatican has the interest of the little people of planet earth in their hearts and minds.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

IMO I think there's gonna be a backlash against this ruling.


I sure hope you're right about that. The S.C. doesn't reverse a ruling very often. We just need the RFRA to be repealed. - that's our only chance.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Annee

IMO I think there's gonna be a backlash against this ruling.


I sure hope you're right about that. The S.C. doesn't reverse a ruling very often. We just need the RFRA to be repealed. - that's our only chance.


Oh no, they won't reverse it. Are you kidding? The arrogance of Scalia alone will prevent that.

It's just, "the pendulum swings".

Obama signed the federal non-discrimination act changes this morning for all LGBT (including trans) with NO religious exemptions.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




Activism has no business on the bench. The bench is about the law. Period. That you would even support an activist SCOTUS judges shows your contempt for that document and the separation of powers.


BS! The only five judges who ruled this way were all Catholic men. Go figure. Of course this was "activism" from the bench.


Because the Constitution was the reason behind the SCOTUS decision,


No it wasn't.


all of your "no it isn't" protests and evil Catholic conspiracies notwithstanding. You are wrong when you say it wasn't.


Prove it. Show us where in the ruling the Constitution is referred to once. Please who me in the Hobby Lobby defense argument where their lawyers presented a Constitutional argument.

You can't because there isn't one. If Hobby Lobby thought they could win this case on Constitutional merits they would have brought a Constitutional argument, but they didn't. They (SCOTUS) ruled on the RFRA, because that was the basis for that argument that Hobby Lobby, et al, lawyers case rested on and what they brought to the COURT.





No, no, you caught 'em. They are on marching orders straight form the Vatican. Clarence Thomas and Alfonse D'Amato get paper bags of money straight from the Vatican.

I'm sick and tired of you talking about it was not based on Constitutional grounds. If you read the actual brief, not the talking points prepared for you by leftist and anti-Christian blogs, you would have seen such tidbits as this:




agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives.


Just WTF do you thing they are referring to when they mention "The Free Exercise Clause?" Here's the hint, those words are found in the first amendment to the--wait for it--Constitution.




contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.





And the profitmaking objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the Court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599. Business practices compelled or limited by thetenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising





OMG! THE FIRST AMENDMENT! Sure, they used RFRA's law in addition to the first Amendment, bnut they used in in the CONTEXT of the RFRA's intended protection of--wait for it--FIRST AMENDMENT!




RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb–2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”).





The Hahns and Conestoga sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, seeking to enjoin application of ACA’s contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg.


www.supremecourt.gov...

The HL decision mentions the First Amendment multiple times and they reference the RFRA in reference to it's stated purpose of supporting the First Amendment. From the very act itself:



(a) Findings: The Congress finds that--

(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;

(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and

(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

(b) Purposes: The purposes of this Act are--

(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.


SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.


(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


RFRA full text

So you are either so intellectually dishonest in that you did not read the full text of the documents in question or you were being intentionally deceptive. The SCOTUS clearly ruled using Constitutional principles and mentioned the appropriate clause several times. YOU ARE INCORRECT. Here's a hint, the SCOTUS' mandate is to rule on the CONSTUTIONALITY of laws so their decision must have CONSTITUTIONAL justification.
edit on 21-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join